Q5: Mindset and People: from Zero-Sum to Harmony

We’ve already discussed the importance of collaborative systems in Q3 and Q4. However, we must consider the contexts in which they end up being valuably deployed. Last time, we covered incentives — but maybe not enough on those for whom they were meant. The interplay between people and structures, as well as how it all ties into mindset, will be our topic of exploration this time.

Collaborative Systems and Basic Needs

The reason as to why collaborative systems alone do not lead to people using them brings about interesting questions and queries around human nature, and why we do the things we do. Why is it that we need reasons to engage collaboratively? Shouldn’t moving together be the preference for all of us?

The blunt answer is that harmonious conditions of such kinds are only possible in a world where we see our basic needs covered. If we go back to how human beings started organizing beyond the family structure in the first place, it was often in the interest of survival. As much as some conclusions reached by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651) may be up for debate, the thought experiment around the human state of nature, which he claims to be “the war of all against all”, is one that history has shown us unfold for millenia.

To some extent, we’ve always been collaborators — this is a distinction of scale rather than nature. Hunter-gatherers rarely made groups of larger than 100 people — but tribalism that enabled lots of tension (including violence) between groups was the key paradigm back then. The neolithic revolution then led us to form larger and more stable communities, and over time we moved from villages to city states, and from that to nations and globally present empires. This isn’t meant to be a history lesson (others are more suited to provide those), but the point I’m making is that we’ve moved towards more all-encompassing forms of organization as time has gone by.

Equally, we’ve seen the power of social contracts to build structures through which relative harmony can be achieved. Consider how we moved from tribes to societies, from more war to less (still plenty, but everything is relative), and from barter to currency — and much of it is strongly correlated with large sets of people building with sustainability in mind. In other words, we realized that we can be our own worst enemy and that it may need addressing. And well, on that end, things may not be too different now from before.

Pushing Boundaries & Moving From Zero-Sum Conformity to Harmony

We now live in a world where the priorities of society have been extended. We have set our sights higher. If we used to exclusively compete for survival in the past (many still do), some of us now also compete for societal stake. Our financial systems, along with increased globalism and interconnectedness, have now put us in a position where we play for more, and dare believe in prosperity beyond survival.

However, one thing we have not yet left behind in this endeavor is the zero-sum mindset. I used the word “harmony” in the last section — a synonym of which is conformity. The difference between these two words is the connotations. Harmony is often perceived as something positive, while conformity, which emphasizes the notion of hierarchical control or tacit subservience, often serves as the contrast. I bring this up because we likely want harmony to be a better representation of our social contracts and structures than conformity — something that often is yet to be the case.

The prospects of people in society “moving together” does not necessarily mean that we have been giving everyone ownership of that vision. Our ability to organize has not naturally translated into the covering of basic needs for all, but rather the needs and wants of those who are at the forefront of change. Democracy and the structures built in its interest may have been a move to counteract this dynamic, but the decreasing trust in governments globally may point to the fact that we still have much to learn here. On one end, it all has led to amazing progress and average living standards beyond comparison to the past. On the other, it has led to slavery, proxy wars, and… I’ll stop there. Too much to cover, and this article is definitely not the place. What has led our tendency to be destructively constructive (a paradox we seem to manage to uphold) is another debate, but a focal component of it (beyond the interdependency challenges we’ve discussed in earlier posts) is the prevalent mentality positing that for some to succeed, others have to fail or, worse yet, suffer.

We then often expect these problems to be addressed through various structures — whether they be in the form of governmental initatives, such as welfare and minimum wage increases to balance the scales, or private sector initiatives where openly competitive dynamics are there to make things more accessible and affordable for all. The examples are many (the ones I brought up are financial), but from an organizationally deployed standpoint, I like classifying them in terms of these poorly named structures (open to suggestions!):

1) Boundary-imposing

These are structures that are set up, globally and locally, in the interest of sustainable possibility. Our regulatory and financial systems, which serve as examples, mainly seek to account for the limitations of human (inter-)actions, and how these can be accounted for by defining the scope of reasonably valid action. Hobbes believed strongly that the power of the social contract was the fabric holding it all together, stopping us from being pitted against one another when completely unnecessary.

The boundary-imposing patterns are usually facilitated by governments and globally empowered organizations, and seek to address visions, values and dynamics on a comprehensive level. In the interest of mitigating risk, these structures are also largely incremental, as big changes here often have sweeping impact and address our most pressing needs We often prefer to be on the safe side here, and perhaps rightfully so.

2) Boundary-pushing

These are the structures, constrained by 1), that try to make the most of evident conditions to leverage boundaries and, in some cases, push beyond them. You will see this more frequently from the private sector, as its actors rarely have the power to define boundaries (unless they’re huge — Big Pharma, for instance) — but as we’ve seen so often, they are no strangers to questioning said boundaries by testing the waters. Companies deploying generative AI and what it means for intellectual property may be the most prominent example in recent times, and before that we had cryptocurrencies and the debate around whether they should be considered securities (still ongoing).

Sometimes, we might find that what 1) provides us is completely sufficient — in fact, public sector organizations often have, as arbiters of the boundaries, the advantage to circumvent the need for 2). In instances where that is not the case, the boundary-pushing structures are there to enable new paradigms. Boundary-pushing structures are rarely about limitations — rather, potential becomes the focal point. “What can we make happen to enable our organizations and people, while treading the fine line along the boundary?”

I may elaborate on these structures down the line, but you might already notice that this way of categorization implies the need for 1) and 2) to sync. One without the other is futile, and both present without interplay is likely equally destructive. Otherwise we’re stuck with structures but without a system (Big Pharma in the United States and its ability to consistently circumvent anti-trust laws instantly comes to mind here). In addition, we will find that depending on context and audience, different types of 1) and 2) are required. There will be some tenets that apply across the board, but the one-size-fits-all is not really a thing here.

Think of the distinction between Apple’s leading establishment and what we hope to achieve with FuzeQube over the decades. Apple’s vision is to “think different”, and its mission is to build amazing products. Their mission is a highly complex one that requires state-of-the art expertise on every end — expertise that they claim is harder to come by and train than leadership and/or management skills. This is how they justify their emphasis on “experts leading experts”, as opposed to traditional manager oversight.

Now, although FuzeQube is equally about meaningful innovation but in a more open-ended context, Apple’s prioritization of core expertise would likely not work for our ecosystem. That sort of structure may make sense for some of the startups within — where niche products and offerings will be the value proposition — but not for the ecosystem holistically, where part of the mission is to in fact take people from being novices to experts. The broader the objective of the ecosystem, the more comprehensive and diverse the resources and offerings must be. This is even more so important in early-stage innovation, where structure remains is a luxurious proposition.

Nonetheless, what Apple has done magically is unite the entire company under the vision of “think different.” They reduced the number of managers and made their responsibilities more cross-functional. Equally, they put everyone under one P&L, meaning that the mission is one and the same for all, independent of the tasks of each employee, manager, or higher-level executive — to think different. This is something that all organizations, including our own, could learn from (there is likely no better case study for consistent innovation out there).

If anything, this dedication to a particular vision, as well as the alignment of structures with the intended outcome of the organization, takes us back to where we jumpstarted this discussion. There’s one thing that will be vital in our pursuit to improve these structures, and transcends context or category: mindset. Regardless of how Apple has done it, it may be time for more organizations to move from zero-sum conformity to harmony. We want to be part of that trajectory, and see ecosystems — and the people who drive it — as the prime vehicle.

People and the Interplay of Structures and Mindset

Ecosystems are not just an organizational constellation — they’re a mindset. Ecosystems cannot deploy a zero-sum paradigm without being completely contradictory. They are not “just” about moving together — but also growing and being held accountable together. Ecosystems actively establish holistically vested interest in the wins and losses of entities and people within the ecosystem to increase the level of empathy and willingness to contribute beyond one’s own cause/project. The European Union is built around this notion, and despite all its flaws, it is the strongest ever attempt at a continental ecosystem. It must be said that success in this arena is no easy feat — a big part of our consulting work falls under the categories of governance alignment and incentive design for that very reason.

Nonetheless, it all can be helped by one variable in particular: the right people. It’s a cliché, I know — but regardless of whether we are social constructivists or not (a topic that may be addressed here at a later point), ecosystems confidently take a stance that implies how we not only have structures feeding into mindsets, but equally mindsets feeding into structures to establish sustainable collaborations. And thus far, to my knowledge, the only known mindset hosts have been humans, who turn thoughts into action, frameworks into applied structures, and engage in iterative feedback loops to improve on resulting dynamics.

These discussions are increasingly important now as we’re giving technologies, such as AI, more decisionmaking power on every end, effectively turning AI into an infrastructure that affects our mindsets, but with the reverse relationship not holding equally. How do we ensure that the structures and resources remain servants to humanity as opposed to the other way around? Hoping I can explore this with you all at a later point.

Beyond that, some dynamics go beyond any formally specified structure built around them. This is where the information systems field resorts to the lens of social embeddedness, which highlights the relational nature of value creation, and the importance of particular environments in facilitating meaningful dynamics for those within them. It’s this social embeddedness that moves an organization from a set of fragmented mindsets to an intentional culture — one that simply cannot be created without the right people and the environment they facilitate together (our recently announced Q^2 talent community was inspired by this). As much as I love the hybrid or fully remote work scheme, there’s a reason some companies are relentless in having things in-person, despite it costing them more — they simply believe in the power of social embeddedness. Maybe immersive technologies will change their minds. 🙂

Point being that it’s not a coincidence that when business leaders talk about resources, humans are, just like structures and processes, considered capital. The value that people bring to this equation is not replicable. More pertinently, in these contexts, the importance of mindset takes clear precedence over active skillset. For any of this to work, you need those who are self-starters; who thrive in ambiguity; who empathize deeply; who understand the value of dynamic change; and who prioritize collective growth and accountability (at least within reason). An organization with very competent individuals, who still embrace zero-sum mindsets and do not align with the defined vision, is set to fall. The fact that many of us have come across smart people we’d strongly prefer not to work with is a testament to it all. The positive contrast is how mission-driven individuals can be a unique beacon of organizational dynamism and allow for the circumvention of eternally present structural limitations, like inertia in innovative contexts — a true Achilles heel of any competitive enterprise (Nokia, Kodak, Blockbuster and Sears can all attest).

The long-winded point I’ve tried to make is that mindset, people and the culture resulting from both, not only enable a particular vision and trajectory to be maintained, but are absolutely key in enabling the unique dynamics that set ecosystems apart. If social contracts are the fabric that holds it all together, then people are the producers and guardians of the lotus silk. There is so much more to be said here, but I will leave it at that.

There are many views on the topics of culture and mindset, and they’re so difficult to analyze due to implicit biases and constraints of isolation. All I’m saying is that the correlations are strong — enough for me and Marco to be confident that our entire careers are worth dedicating to them. Hopefully what results from it is a lot of good structures — built for people who can thrive in them, make them better and, dare we say, transcend them.

Bardia Bijani
Managing Partner, FuzeQube Group